It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gas Station Employee Fired for Fighting Off Robbery-Important!!

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2008 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by dhardeman
I, as yourself, don't have much to hide from or fear- I use my real name on here as I assume you do, and I welcome the repercussions of my actions. I, like you, was taught to fight back.

I was in the military (under the reign of Daddy Bush, no less) & I'm classified as a Gulf War Vet at the local VA office. I was in a rate that required a Secret-level Clearance just to qualify, so it's not like I'm totally ignorant about the "underbelly" of the military.

However, I still take my Oath to defend the Constitution seriously & see nothing wrong or cowardly for using a "user-name." The reason for this is that, if the government really wants to find out who I am, they will...Those who don't have the "official clout" to find me out will at least be discouraged from interfering with my efforts to fulfill my Oath. It's a lot easier to "get on with business" without other petty little distractions getting in my face! And this also includes protecting my family as well as myself in the course of my duty.



Originally posted by dhardeman
I think it is the responsibility of the strong to uphold the weak in our society, and for our government and corporations to claim that they are the only strength is a grave mistake.

I agree...That's what the Constitution & my military Oath to it is all about. Remember that part of that Oath includes "to defend my country from all enemies, foreign & domestic." It's just that my time in the military is what opened my eyes to the fact that our very own government has become the worst enemy of the Constitution & the People that live by it.
I firmly believe that the Second Amendment is the most important in the Bill of Rights...Without the Second Amendment, we lose our best ability to defend all of the rest of our Rights.




posted on May, 21 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
I was in the military (under the reign of Daddy Bush, no less) & I'm classified as a Gulf War Vet at the local VA office. I was in a rate that required a Secret-level Clearance just to qualify, so it's not like I'm totally ignorant about the "underbelly" of the military.

However, I still take my Oath to defend the Constitution seriously & see nothing wrong or cowardly for using a "user-name." The reason for this is that, if the government really wants to find out who I am, they will...Those who don't have the "official clout" to find me out will at least be discouraged from interfering with my efforts to fulfill my Oath. It's a lot easier to "get on with business" without other petty little distractions getting in my face! And this also includes protecting my family as well as myself in the course of my duty.



Couldn't agree with you more- I was just relating to jasonjnelson personally. I never have found it cowardly to have a user name, and in fact I wanted to change mine after I signed up but we all know how that goes~ Now I actually have to be careful about what I say though... :0 I realize the necessity at times as well, and understand your view completely.


Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
I agree...That's what the Constitution & my military Oath to it is all about. Remember that part of that Oath includes "to defend my country from all enemies, foreign & domestic." It's just that my time in the military is what opened my eyes to the fact that our very own government has become the worst enemy of the Constitution & the People that live by it.
I firmly believe that the Second Amendment is the most important in the Bill of Rights...Without the Second Amendment, we lose our best ability to defend all of the rest of our Rights.


If none of you all have woken up yet, above is a view out of the belly of the beast. What part of "and that government of the people, by the people, for the people" do you not understand? Thank you Midnight and jasonj.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jasonjnelson
reply to post by dhardeman
 


But why do they want us so weak? What more can they take from us? Of course I use my real name. Darthvader115 was already taken, lol. But really, what do I have to fear? Death? No, I don't fear death. I fear a long drawn out and painful death, but not the black abyss.
But why are the sheeple placing a weakened and empty , peaceful life, ahead of a real existence?
We are so much easier to control now, and I can only see it getting worse.

I really believe, that when they start filling the camps and loading the trains, most will merely shuffle in.


For humanity's sake I wish I didn't have to, but I'd be lying to myself if I didn't say I had to agree. I'll be watching from the mountains.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by MidnightDStroyer
 


Where the hell did you come from? I have been on this site for months, and now you show up with these valid points? I agree, if I had a family, or political career, I would not have my real screen name. That is why I say that I have nothing to hide. I have nothing, hence...

I agree with you and hand you 5 bonus stars for the 2nd amendment comment.

The fact is, just like Liebermans new bill for internet monitoring, they are making up all sorts of laws that are designed for one reason alone.

Think about it.
Weaken our independent resolve.
Take away our weapons, by guilt or law.
Create wide ranging laws and restrictions.
Arrest all those who oppose you using said laws.
Record all of the general population. Someone speaks up, arrest them for minor crimes that have "added up".

Buy your guns people, when Obama is president, we will not have that right. (to stop crime, they say)
If Mccain is president, they will take it to stop "homegrown" terrorists.

I think it just may be over, this American dream.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by dhardeman
reply to post by dhardeman
 



For humanity's sake I wish I didn't have to, but I'd be lying to myself if I didn't say I had to agree. I'll be watching from the mountains.



I can't agree with you more. And to think that I love this country so much, and am accused of having radical ideas for knowing my rights. What went wrong, and why so quick? Maybe these secret organizations are real. As they said in "The Usual Suspects", 'the greatest trick the Devil ever pulled, was convincing the world he didn't exist.'



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by jasonjnelson
 


Not entirely correct. It's not that a life is worth less than the money of insurance going up (Unless your corporation was Satan himself as CEO).

Think about it like this. Most robbers don't WANT to shoot. They want the THREAT of shooting to be enough that the people give them the money. By staying passive and calm and cooperating with the AVERAGE ROBBER you increase the chances that no one gets hurt.

So corporations risk the chance that you won't be shot if you comply (people getting killed is bad business). If you try to struggle the Robber has either to Flee or Fight (funny, same choices the attacked has) and will usually Fight. This leads to people being shot that would not have been if the person being robbed had simply cooperated.

Now, from experiance, I can tell you that the AVERAGE ROBBER is almost as scared as the people he is robbing. He won't shoot, and will run with out the money if his bluff is called. THIS IS VERY RISKY, because how do you know if he's an AVERAGE ROBBER?

Many things go into these factors. If he's on Drugs, that's trouble. You can't read him. Pretty much, as bad as it sucks, do what he says. Now, if a clear cut oppurtunity arises, and you are one of those people that can pull it off, seperate him from the weapon then immobilize him.

If he is clearly distraught, nervous, you have an oppurtunity to disarm. However, if you don't react quickly at the right time, he will shoot out of fear (usually even accidentally). He could miss, but if he doesn't you just cost yourself and possibly others lives.

If he is completely clear, he very well could be a pro. If he's not wanting to take hostages, let the company money go. Killing you will bring more cops and deeper investigations than merely the robbery. He doesn't want that kind of heat.

I know it sounds crazy, but you really have to try to figure out what kind of Robber you are dealing with... and do so quickly and with certainty.

Usually, if you don't know how to do this, it's safest to do as told. However, NEVER leave the building with any Robbers, and never allow anyone else to leave with the Robber either. Highly dangerous.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by BradKell
 


I can't agree with your statement more. However, I can say that you should note that I believe the Employee, the one on the scene, making a snap decision, when he said that he thought his coworker under attack. In that circumstance, I believe that he was justified in defending the clerk. He wasn't protecting the money, he was protecting the coworker.

[edit on 21-5-2008 by jasonjnelson]



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Absolutely. Obviously he made the right choice (whether through skill or luck).

Here's the problem. Had the Assaulter had a weapon concealed, say a knife or pistol, things could have went very badly when the Co-Worker went to the rescue.

It could have been a spat from an ex or any numerous things (not that these never end badly) that would have defused itself, especially at the mention of calling the cops if he didn't leave. Trying a rescue like that could have cost lives where no were truely at risk.

That's the problem, truly gaging the level of risk intended.

Now, ME PERSONALLY, I say beat that ass for them. Call the bluff. But that's MY RULE to follow. I won't risk anyones life having them heed such advice. Some people have no clue how to fight or take control of a situation... and sometimes the plight of death doesn't give them the ability either.

Some people can do great things when fearing for their lives, others just end up dead. You never know until put in that position.

I can say that the Corporate is correct, because it can't gage the ability in every worker to take out an attacker/robber. So the best way to protect those employees is to have them not escalate the situation.

Now, if I was a Manager on Site I would better know WHO can do WHAT in certain situations and use that as best I can in those few minutes. Most robberies are over in 5 minutes. If I got an ex-cop or military man and the robbery is singled on him, I may give a nod to take him down when an oppurtunity occurs. The CEO, far away from the little store, doesn't have that option. And if a Manager weighs the risk and allows an employee to do such, he should have the courage to stand up to Corporate when they come a calling for explantions and people to be fired.

We agree on alot, I just don't see a Conspiricy here (though I see why you do).



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by BradKell
 


Well, it is not just about the corporation in my "conspiracy". You see, I only saw this as a catalyst for the thread. What the conspiracy is, is that we are being indoctrinated to do this in every case. Who cares if it was a beef with an ex. If a person was being assaulted, and he felt that he could handle it, then let him protect the woman, for God's sake. I see all the time where people are prosecuted for defending themselves, or at the least, watch criminals walk while witnesses are baffled. Call the police, stay out of the way, blah blah blah...
What about the string of shootings I had pointed out earlier? why are able bodied males being led to believe that they have no ability to stop these shooters, and worse, being led to believe that cowering while being shot is the best response. Where are our heroes? Where are those who know that being killed while protecting others is a worthwhile risk? Read the letter I sent to the company. Ask yourself what would have become of this man had he actually had to watch a coworker get shot.
Liberals, IMHO, have led us to believe that there is nothing inherently wrong with any of our fellow man. That there is nothing some free money and therapy won't fix. (just a microcosm of their foreign policy) They don't see, that even in their belief system, there are going to be those that seek to hurt and kill and steal. And we should not be dependent on their (tptb) help. When we find ourselves unable to even contain a rowdy wedding without calling in the police to taser people, then we are asking for more and more police, and hence a police/nanny state is formed. We are being indoctrinated to believe that we cannot accomplish anything without the state. Is this not a conspiracy enough for you?



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by jasonjnelson
 


No, not really a conspiricy. To be a conspiricy the people doing the hold ups, or having beef with their ex, would have to be at the head of it so as to gain. As it stands, who gains?

Sure, it's bad press that a guy got fired for standing up for a co-worker (by the way, I keep seeing he THOUGHT she was being assaulted... was she ACTUALLY being assaulted?) but not nearly as bad as if someone had DIED in the store. THAT would have deterred business.

So really no one gains in this situation. If there is no gain, no conspiricy.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by BradKell
 


I beg to differ. The state gains everything. Are you not reading my posts? This is not about the money. It's about conditioning Americans to lay down and take it.



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 07:22 AM
link   
ok , i have a question : how does a policy of ` do not activly resist robbery ` increase company profit ????



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by jasonjnelson
Where the hell did you come from? I have been on this site for months, and now you show up with these valid points?

What do you mean by, "now you show up?"...I've been around ATS since 2002. As a matter of fact, Simon Grey himself (ATS Founder!) registered himself on these forums only about a month before I did.



Originally posted by jasonjnelson
...Think about it.
Weaken our independent resolve.
Take away our weapons, by guilt or law.
Create wide ranging laws and restrictions.
Arrest all those who oppose you using said laws.
Record all of the general population. Someone speaks up, arrest them for minor crimes that have "added up".

Let's see...I think this thread right here addresses the "weaken resolve."
The Pro-Gun Argument is one of the most recent threads that covers "Take away weapons."
Attention ATS! Know The Hidden Meanings... seems to do a good job of covering "wide ranging laws."
The website WTP shows this example (and quite a few others) of "arrest the opposition."
The advent of Social Security & the "Real ID" threads (found with the ATS Search function) here on ATS covers "record the population."

It's all just a part of the NWO's plans to emasculate the population so we can all be enslaved...After all, in the old times it was okay to create eunichs in order to suppress some of the more "aggressive" behaviors.

It's been this way ever since the beginnings of human civilization.

In truth, the so-called "NWO" is really just more of the same 'ol thing...The Old World Order suppressing human social advancement to prevent the true New World Order of racial unity by mutual concent (which is how the Constitutional Republic of America was originally formed to do).
The US government claims to fight against tyrannical facsism but is doing nothing more than turning the USA into a tyrannical facsism. They're relying upon enslavement & tyranny to drag the world back into "dark ages" barbarism.



Originally posted by BradKell
That's the problem, truly gaging the level of risk intended...
...I can say that the Corporate is correct, because it can't gage the ability in every worker to take out an attacker/robber.

This is the real trick in any situation. It shouldn't be a decision arbitrated by anyone who's not on the scene at the time...This is why I can't agree that the Corporate would be correct because it wasn't the corporate who was on the scene. This is true not only on the individual level, but on the local, national & international levels...It's just that the "leaders" in our country are making arbitrary judgments that affect the individuals (hence the "conspiracy" with the obsessive proliferation of "laws"), just the same as that employer who fired the hero for defending a human life.


Originally posted by ignorant_ape
ok , i have a question : how does a policy of ` do not activly resist robbery ` increase company profit ????

It's not the company that has anything to gain: It's the Facsist Police State that gains...More control, more police, more guns to watch the population that has been robbed of guns to defend themselves...It's a downward spiral. The more often that the individual cowers under the criminal's boot, the less chance that the very same individual will resist the boot of the Police State.



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Dear Jason,

Thank you for contacting us regarding your concerns about actions we have taken in response to the robbery that occurred at our SuperAmerica store located in Roseville , Minnesota .

The primary concern of Speedway SuperAmerica is the safety of our more than 19,000 employees, and the millions of customers who frequent our stores each day.

Unfortunately recent news reports did not accurately reflect the full facts surrounding this robbery and our decision to terminate an employee who violated company policy by intervening during the robbery.

Our policy is that employees are never to do anything to endanger themselves, co-workers or customers in the event of a robbery. In fact, the first principle in the policy is, “Cooperate! Don’t argue, resist or attack the robber.” Law enforcement officials support our position to avoid any confrontation during a robbery. According to our surveillance video, our female employee present during the robbery was not assaulted.

The employee who was dismissed signed documents acknowledging he had read and understood the policy. He was given a copy of procedures to use if involved in a robbery. In addition, he also completed a computer-based training program, followed by a test that indicated he understood the policy. In written statements to local police, neither employee present during the robbery indicated any physical attack.

While it is regrettable this situation occurred, it is important that we have and enforce policies to ensure the safety of all our employees and customers during a potentially dangerous situation. There is nothing in the store that is as valuable as our employees and our customers.

We appreciate your concern and the opportunity to share these important facts with you.

Sincerely,

Anthony Kenney
President, Speedway SuperAmerica

this is the letter i was sent in return.



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by jasonjnelson
 


As asked previously, apparently there was no ACTUAL ASSAULT. (Sort of like in the Army. We now actually have to be AIMED AT to fire back, and if they haven't fired yet we have to go through all these motions to show our intent first... giving them ample time to fire anyways). The female he thought was being assaulted, wasn't.

Sadly, the guy had the right idea but at the wrong time. Had she been struck or grabbed it would have leaked and the Speedway would have taken a huge PR hit firing the man that saved her. The story didn't pan out that way, and he overacted to what COULD have been a dangerous situation... but wasn't at the time.

Think of it this way. The man goes to 'save' the girl, but she's not being assualted. The 'assailant' had no intention to assault (perhaps verbally harrass) but once confronted becomes physically violent and the 'hero' can't contain him.

Now, people have been injured by a man who never intended to do bodily harm (hate putting it like this, sounds like I'm backing some idiot that either can't keep things private or is a woman abuser, I don't condone his actions either. Just showing how this Clerk could have put people in REAL JEOPARDY).

If the Survailence tapes can be conformed, I have to fully back the decision of Speed Mart. Escalation of force is what we call it, so innocent people don't get killed (and so we don't go away for a long time. Leavenworth sucks, I hear.) He took it upon his self to by pass certain steps (perhaps stating the customer had to leave or the cops would be called, calling the cops loud enough for the customer to hear, etc.) before taking physical action. It could have cost people there lives.

Now, again, had the customer struck her, I'd say string him up and beat him down. Of course, the store could lie to cover up, but I'm sure the Female would leak the info or stand up for the fire co-worker.. because to her he really would be a HERO. Until we see the tapes, we won't know.



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 01:08 AM
link   
gotta add my say here. it does seem from when you are a little child that they are teaching you that its not ok to fight in your own defense. I say that is the ONLY time its ok to fight, and we certainly cannot defend on others to defend us. That is foolish, weak, and irresponsible. My take on any situation where i am threatened is this, if a person has a gun or knife on me, and i give them the initiative, then THEY have control to choose whether i live or die. If i take action, then I take control of the situation, and living or dying is MY responsibility. I always assume if someone pulls out a weapon that i might end up dead, and i would rather the impetus of action be in my hands rather than theirs.
FURTHER, i postulate that NO ONE can truly fully be themselves unless they live in the full security of personal safety at all times, in all situations, and that means that either they have a firearm and are confident in its use, or they are well versed in martial arts. Only when no one can easily take our physical security from us are we able to openly and truly come into our own. Just my beliefs....every person has a DUTY and responsibility to be able to defend themselves, and anyone who cant is a burden to those around them when in a difficult situation. If i and my friends get into a fight, and i know one or another cant defend themselves well, that is a LIABILITY to me in that situation as i must then defend them as well.



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 01:15 AM
link   
sorry got off subject there. Yes, its obvious we are being trained against fighting for ourselves so that all forms of revolution are repressed and unlikely. It is sad to me that while it is not ok for the middle and lower class to use weapons to push and support their fight for equality, rights, and living conditions, the elite rich regularly uses the police and military to enforce their views upon the subservient blue collar groups. In every decade, there are uprisings and people using their rights as americans to nonviolently push for equality and freedom, and then there are the police and military, shooting them, gassing them, and beating them into submission. Now we have a largely criminalized lower class, so many have no rights to be near weapons, few have the will to fight, and if cought you are put into jail and subject to torture rape and other abuses. A masterful system intentionally set into place to make any future revolutions unlikely...but remember...
"those who make peaceful revolution impossible makes violent revolution inevitable"



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 02:33 AM
link   
Many companies have a policy of not fighting a robber with good reason. I've been robbed at gunpoint. There was no fighting the robber. He was far enough away if I tried I wouldn't be typing this today. My opinion on this is the man saved the other employee so even if he was fired he can take pride in the fact he probably saved a life. Now what if it didn't turn out the way it did and the robber killed both this man and the employee he was helping?



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 02:48 AM
link   
i gotta say in all honesty, that if someone presents with a gun, a meteor comes out of the sky, jesus comes again, or any other life changing or serious cataclysmic event occurs, work policy takes a MASSIVE back seat over personal choice and actions. The LAST thing im worried about when someone has a gun is what it says in a damned rulebook, or what my boss will think of my actions. As to being in a position to do anything...i never said anything about a person being stupid. If an opportunity presents itself, you make appropriate choices.



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by pexx421
i The LAST thing im worried about when someone has a gun is what it says in a damned rulebook, or what my boss will think of my actions.


Gave you a star for that one. I agree with you. If I felt my life was in immediate danger when I got robbed I would have made an effort to at least fight for survival. But I never for a moment felt the man would pull that trigger. He was far enough away from me though that I wasn't about to test my feeling.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join